With many thanks to Yossi for sending along a copy:
The Relative and Absolute Chronology
of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I or Very Early Iron Age IIA?*
YOSEF GARFINKEL HOO-GOO KANG
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
ABSTRACT: This article examines the suggestions by Singer-Avitz, Finkelstein and Piasetzky that Khirbet Qeiyafa belongs in the very late Iron Age I, at the end of the third quarter of the tenth century BCE. A close examination of the various arguments presented by these scholars clearly indicates methodological failures and inconsistencies that do not meet their own criteria. The pottery assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa is a typological ‘bridge’ between two periods. It maintains the Iron Age I tradition, while introducing several characteristics that later became the classical markers of the Iron Age IIA.
The absolute chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa is based upon radiometric datings of short-lived olive pits, collected from a destruction layer of a one-period site that existed for a very short time. Nothing at the site indicates a long occupation that lasted over hundreds of years. Khirbet Qeiyafa marks the beginning of a fresh cultural development, with new types of fortifications, city planning, pottery assemblage and administration. These advanced developments clearly marked the beginning of a new era — the Iron Age IIA.
Zwinglius Redivivus 
Do I understand that, deducing from the absolute chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa, the transition from IA I to IA IIA is dated at the end of the third quarter of the tenth century BCE? It’s not completely clear to me whether the date or the attribution of the finds is at stake. (Is there a PDF somewhere?)
LikeLike